Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The purpose of this review is to discuss the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of penile pathology. Normal penile anatomy as well as the appearance of neoplastic and non-neoplastic entities on MRI will be reviewed. While ultrasound remains the first line imaging modality in evaluating most penile pathology, MR imaging has specific advantages owing to improved soft tissue resolution, ability to evaluate less accessible or complex anatomy (such as at the base of the penis), and the ability to detect subtle enhancement. Therefore, MRI is useful for when ultrasound and/or clinical findings are equivocal or incongruent. In addition, MR imaging is essential for preoperative surgical planning and is the imaging modality of choice in evaluating penile prostheses. The added value of MRI in these settings makes it an integral component to the management of many pathological entities affecting the penis.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2018.12.004 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!